1. Introduction

Translation criticism is a fundamental aspect of ensuring the quality and effectiveness of translated texts. It is defined as “the act of making judgments on a translation” and involves assessing the quality of the target text by comparing it with the original (Manafi Anari, 2005, p. 49). Within this field, various approaches and theories provide frameworks for translators, aimed at improving translation quality. These frameworks offer objective critiques that help translators navigate common challenges, ultimately playing a critical role in conveying meaning and making foreign cultures, languages, and literatures accessible to a broader audience (Esai, 2020, p. 35). Overall, they contribute to the development of translation studies by enhancing critical discourse on translation practices and improving the quality of translated works across different languages and genres.

Given the importance of translation criticism, this study focused on Reiss’s (2000) text-type model as a lens through which to evaluate the English translation of Houshang Moradi Kermani’s Khomreh (The Water Urn), originally written by Houshang Moradi Kermani in Persian (2004) and translated into English by Caroline Croskery (2014). By first outlining Reiss’s model and its methodological framework and briefly reviewing the related literature, this paper aimed to provide a foundation for the subsequent analysis. The application of Reiss’s model allows for a detailed discussion of the findings, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the translation. The paper concluded with a comprehensive assessment of the translation’s quality as informed by the model, thus providing insights that contribute to the broader discourse on translation criticism.

2. Literature Review

Translation criticism serves as a vital component of translation studies, providing frameworks for evaluating translations’ efficacy and faithfulness against their source texts. One influential model in this field is Reiss’s (2000) text-type model, which lays the groundwork for assessing how translations fulfill their intended communicative purposes and the challenges encountered, especially in cross-cultural contexts like English and Persian. The following part briefly introduces this model as it is the methodological framework of the current study.

2.1. Methodological Framework: Reiss’s (2000) Model of Translation Criticism

In her influential work, Translation Criticism: The Potentials and Limitations, Reiss (2000) adopts a linguistic-textual approach to translation criticism. She argues that the most significant invariant factor in translation is the type of text from which the translation originates. According to Reiss (2000), the text type dictates all subsequent choices a translator must make throughout the translation process. She asserts that the functional category of a text serves as the primary criterion for evaluating purposeful translations.

She argues that the most significant invariant factor in translation is the type of text from which the translation originates. According to her, the text type dictates all subsequent choices a translator must make throughout the translation process. Reiss (2000) avows that the functional category of a text serves as the primary criterion for evaluating purposeful translations (Reiss, 2000). She identifies four distinct text types:

1. Content-Focused: This type is evaluated based on its semantic, grammatical, and stylistic characteristics.
2. Form-Focused: This text is assessed in terms of aesthetics, alongside its stylistic, semantic, and grammatical features.
3. Appeal-Focused: Characterized by presenting information from a specific perspective and with an explicit purpose, this type is judged based on its non-linguistic outcomes.
4. Audio-Medial: This type relies on non-linguistic technical media, employing graphic, acoustic, and visual expressions, and is evaluated according to its effectiveness.

According to Reiss (2000), conducting objective translation criticism involves several steps: first, defining the text type and selecting the appropriate translation method; second, assessing the extent to which the translator has adhered to the relevant criteria. In this process, the critic should examine the linguistic features and their equivalents in the target language, including semantic, lexical, grammatical, and stylistic elements. Additionally, the critic must consider extra-linguistic factors that influence both the source and translated texts. These extra-linguistic elements encompass the immediate situation, subject matter, temporal and spatial contexts, audience considerations, speaker dynamics, and the implications of the translation. It is important to note that the entire process of translation criticism must be carried out with careful attention to the specific function of the translation in question.

2.2. Related Studies

This review specifically focuses on the English-Persian translation pair and briefly examines some of the most related studies that have used Reiss’s (2000) model to assess the translation quality of different texts in Iran.

Manafi Anari and Jahanjouyan (2014) assessed the English translation of Dāstān-hā-ye Shahr-e Jangi (2009), published as A City Under Siege (2011), using Reiss’s (2000) text typological model. Using her descriptive-comparative methodology, they found that A City Under Siege is a form-focused text that largely meets Reiss’ (2000) proposed requirements for equivalence. Additionally, they showed that the translation effectively preserved the accuracy of information presented in the source text while retaining essential formal and aesthetic elements.

Similarly, Manafi Anari and Adili (2016) focused on the translation of a form-focused Persian short story entitled The School Principal written by Jalal Al-e Ahmad and its English-translated version by John K. Newton (1974). Their analysis revealed that the translator effectively transferred most linguistic elements and extralinguistic factors into English, positioning the translated version as a valid equivalent of the original.

Abdi (2021), however, explored the applicability of Reiss’s (2000) approach to translation criticism by examining the English version of J. K. Rowling’s (2000) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and its Persian translation. The results demonstrated that the translator successfully achieved equivalence at nearly all levels, although some grammatical and punctuation issues emerged within the language category, indicating a degree of inconsistency in the translation. Overall, the study concluded that Reiss’s (2000) functionalist approach was largely appropriate for critiquing translated texts.

Interestingly, Shanazary (2022) examined the English translation of Grand Ayatollah Hossain Wahid Khorasani’s book of Islamic Laws (2014), applying Reiss’s (2000) model. His study found that the translation met 80% of Reiss’s (2000) criteria, with most discrepancies relating to semantic elements and certain place factors being overlooked in the translation.

The reviewed studies collectively underscore the significance of Reiss’s (2000) text-type model in evaluating translation practices between English and Persian. They highlight the model’s versatility in addressing various text types and its applicability in navigating the complexities inherent in cultural and linguistic differences. Further exploration of diverse texts by Reiss’s (2000) model aids in identifying strengths and weaknesses in translations, fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in interpreter and translator decision-making processes.

3. Method

This research aimed to conduct an objective, descriptive critique of Houshang Moradi Kermani’s novel The Water Urn (2004). Selected as the case study, this book is authored by Moradi Kermani, a prominent figure in Iranian literature for children and young adults. His works are celebrated for their resonance with both Persian and English-speaking audiences and have been translated into multiple languages, inspiring several film and television adaptations.

The Water Urn was chosen due to the researcher’s familiarity with Moradi Kermani’s writing style and thematic concerns. The novel encapsulates a nostalgic representation of the daily hardships and human tragedies experienced in a typical Iranian village. It intricately weaves local culture into its narrative, exploring themes of poverty, nature, cultural traditions, and marginalized groups, ultimately aiming to immerse readers in profound human experiences (Christensen, 2014). The English translation of this novel was completed by Caroline Croskery in 2014.

Reiss’s (2000) revised model was selected for this research due to its comprehensive framework, which categorizes texts by their primary functions—expressive, informative, or operative. This approach is particularly relevant for analyzing Khomreh (The Water Urn), as its primary purpose is to convey the expressive qualities of Iranian culture and society. By applying Reiss’s (2000) model, the study systematically evaluated how well the translation preserves the linguistic and cultural nuances of the original text while reinforcing the importance of translation in cross-cultural communication.

The model involves a comparative analysis of the source text and its pertinent target text through a series of extra-linguistic determinants, including subject matter, time factor, place factor, audience factor, speaker factor, and affective implications, alongside intra-linguistic elements such as semantic, lexical, grammatical, and stylistic criteria.The actual assessment followed these steps:

1. Identification of Text Type: The first phase involved classifying The Water Urnaccording to its text type, guided by Reiss’s framework.
2. Close Reading: The researcher conducted a sentence-by-sentence comparative reading of both the Persian source and the English translation, keeping the criteria for translation criticism in mind.
3. Collection of Examples: A selection of examples was drawn from the text, comprising source text extracts alongside their English translations. These examples were chosen to illustrate how the translation addressed the established criteria.
4. Analysis and Evaluation: After compiling the examples, the researcher reviewed and analyzed them in relation to both extra-linguistic and intra-linguistic elements, making observations about the translation quality.
5. Conclusion of Quality Assessment: Finally, based on the analysis of the recorded examples and their correspondence to the set criteria, a judgment regarding the quality of the translation was formulated.

This structured approach allows for a thorough examination of the translation, providing insights into its effectiveness in conveying the source text’s meaning, style, and emotional depth.

4. Results and Discussion

The following sections present the results of the translation quality assessment of Khomreh (The Water Urn) (2004) based on Reiss’s (2000) framework, which emphasizes text-type-based criticism.

4.1. Identifying the Source Text Type

With over 100,000 copies sold, The Water Urn stands out as one of Houshang Moradi Kermani’s award-winning novels. Rooted deeply in his experiences, Moradi Kermani’s narrative reflects his heartfelt emotions and childlike perspective. His unique voice has crafted a structure and linguistic style that boldly captures the essence of his story. His courageous choice of words resonates with the sound and soul of the narrative, renewing the subject matter and vividly conveying his mental imagery. Moradi Kermani effectively employs colloquial language and humor to illuminate the social challenges of his time. He is not afraid to incorporate uncommon or archaic words, which enrich his narratives with depth and texture. This linguistic freedom enables him to traverse the complex pathways of plot and character, transforming the ordinary into the extraordinary (Abdelsadek, 2011).

Based on Reiss’s (2000) text typology, Moradi Kermani’s The Water Urn can be classified as a form-focused text. In such texts, the primary function of language is expressive. The author carefully employs formal elements to create a distinctive artistic expression, leading to a source-language-oriented text. For a translation to be considered authentic, the expressive function must find an equivalent form in the target language, allowing the translation to evoke a similar impression as the source (Reiss, 2000, pp. 31‒33).

4.2. Examination of Linguistic Components

4.2.1. Semantic Elements

As Reiss (2000, p. 53) notes, preserving the content and meaning of the source text requires careful consideration of its semantic components. Establishing semantic equivalence necessitates examining the linguistic context, including both microcontext and macrocontext. The microcontext involves the immediate surroundings of a word—typically within a sentence—while the macrocontext encompasses broader elements, such as paragraphs or the entire text. The degree of equivalence between the source and target texts serves as the benchmark for evaluating the semantic components in the translation.

To illustrate how the translator has managed these semantic elements, consider the following example (Example 1), from The Water Urn:

Example 1:

Source Text (Persian): یا الله ...، توی اتاق هستید آقای مدیر؟ (p. 78)

[Lit.: O God... Are you in the room, Mr. Headmaster?]

Target Text (English): Hello? Are you in here, Sir? (p. 93)

In this instance, the Arabic phrase یا الله (yā Allāh) is used, traditionally invoked in Iranian culture by a person, especially a man, entering a home. It serves as a signal for the inhabitants to prepare for a guest, prompting women to wear hijabs as a sign of propriety. This phrase is a specific speech act with cultural implications.

Caroline Croskery, the translator, adeptly recognizes the pragmatic significance of this phrase and takes into consideration the macrocontext of the narrative. Rather than providing a literal translation, she interprets it idiomatically as “Hello,” a phrase that serves a similar function in seeking permission to enter English-speaking cultures. Croskery’s sensitivity to both the microcontext and macrocontext in determining the appropriate linguistic form demonstrates her skillful rendering of the phrase. This nuanced approach appears consistently in her translation, evident in numerous other examples throughout the text.

4.2.2. Lexical Elements

The lexical components of the target text are largely adequate. It is crucial for critics to assess the translator’s competence in handling various lexical elements, including technical terminology, special idioms, false friends, homonyms, untranslatable words, names, metaphors, wordplay, idiomatic expressions, and proverbs (Reiss, 2000, pp. 57–59). The following sections will delve into these aspects, providing representative samples from the corpus of this study.

Idiomatic usage: Moradi Kermani’s writing is rich in idiomatic expressions. Table 1 illustrates how these idioms were translated, either through a direct English equivalent that conveys a similar meaning but differs in form (Numbers 1 & 3) or through unidiomatic expressions that preserve the intended meaning (Number 2).

Table 1

Idiomatic Usage in The Water Urn

Play on words: In a form-focused text, wordplay at the lexical level should ideally be mirrored by some parallel structure in the target text (Reiss, 2000, p. 59). However, Table 2 demonstrates that the translator has sacrificed the original form and the play on words to prioritize conveying the overall sense.

Names: Names in The Water Urn significantly contribute to the story’s setting, reflecting the culture and religious beliefs of society (Farhadi, 2015). Table 3 outlines how names are handled in the translation. Many names are rendered literally to maintain their impact (e.g., Numbers 3 & 4), with some accompanied by explanations (Number 1). However, in certain cases, features are omitted or adapted to align with the expectations of the target audience (Number 2).

Table 2

 Play on Words in The Water Urn

Table 3

Names in The Water Urn

Untranslatable words: Table 4 reveals that the translator opted to substitute the untranslatable term قران (qerān) with the more general word “coin” The term قران (qerān) refers to a coin that was used in Iran more than fifty years ago. The word is deeply embedded in the culture (Manafi & Adili, 2016, p. 29). In the researcher’s view, this strategy is acceptable as it conveys the core meaning of the word and avoids any potential confusion.

Table 4

Untranslatable Words in The Water Urn

False friends: Table 5 highlights the false friends identified in the corpus. For instance, translating the Persian word کت (kot) as “coat” fails to capture its accurate meaning. In Persian, کت (kot) refers specifically to what English speakers would call a “suit coat,” whereas “coat” in English implies a warm outer garment (Manafi Anari & Adili, 2016, p. 29). Consequently, this translation may not reflect the original meaning accurately.

Table 5

False Friends in The Water Urn

In summary, the comparative analysis of selected samples from the source text alongside their translated counterparts reveals that the translator has effectively conveyed the lexical elements throughout the translation process.

4.2.3 The Grammatical Elements

Reiss (2000) asserts that correctness should be the primary criterion for evaluating the grammatical components of a translation. Acknowledging the differing grammatical systems of languages, she emphasizes prioritizing the morphology and syntax of the target language. All the extracted English sentences from the corpus were found to be grammatically correct.

4.2.4 The Stylistic Elements

According to Reiss (2000, pp. 63–65), the criterion for stylistic evaluation in translation is complete correspondence, particularly important in form-focused texts. The translator must consider the stylistic components of the source text, paying attention to standard, individual, and contemporary usage. Additionally, the translator should identify any stylistic deviations from normative expressions.

Houshang Moradi Kermani employs a colloquial, simple prose style in The Water Urn, reflecting everyday dialect and common expressions. His writing features brevity, rearrangement of sentence elements, and a unique sense of humor, effectively depicting poverty and deprivation. These stylistic elements will be analyzed in the translation.

Brevity: Table 6 illustrates examples of brevity in the text, showing that the translator has successfully retained this stylistic feature through similar short forms in both the source and translation.

Colloquial language: Regarding colloquial language, the translator appears to have effectively captured the spirit of the source text. Table 7 showcases examples that demonstrate this correspondence.

Rearrangement of the sentences: In formal Persian, the typical sentence structure follows a Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) order. However, Persian speakers often rearrange sentence elements in informal contexts, resulting in a more conversational tone. Conversely, English consistently adheres to a Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) structure.

Table 8 provides instances where the author employs sentence rearrangement as a stylistic feature. This informal usage fosters a sense of intimacy. However, such rearrangements cannot be directly mirrored in English due to structural differences between the two languages. The grammatical framework of English does not permit the same flexibility seen in Persian, thereby limiting the transfer of this stylistic element.

Table 6

Brrevity in The Water Urn

Table 7

Colloquial Language in The Water Urn

Table 8

Rearrangement of Sentence Elements in The Water Urn

4.3. Examination of Extra Linguistic Determinants

4.3.1 Subject Matter

Translating a text and evaluating its translation necessitates a solid understanding of the subject matter. This includes not only knowledge of the vocabulary but also an understanding of the concepts behind the words. Such familiarity significantly influences the linguistic forms in both the source and translated texts. As noted by Reiss (2000, pp. 70–71), this understanding must be recognized by both the translator and the critic.

The Water Urn is a children’s novel set in a mid-20th-century rural Iranian schoolhouse. It nostalgically captures the daily challenges and dramas of village life, focusing on the adventures of local children and their beloved schoolmaster, Mr. Samadi. Houshang Moradi Kermani’s vibrant characters highlight the importance of collaboration for community survival.

The literary translator, Caroline Croskery, is a native English speaker who has translated the novel for an English-speaking audience. Born in the United States, she moved to Iran at twenty-one and holds a Bachelor’s degree in Iranian Studies from the University of California, Los Angeles. Her extensive experience in language teaching, translation, and voiceover acting has endowed her with a profound understanding of the subject matter, allowing her to accurately convey related terminologies in the target language.

For example (see Example 2), the Persian term کدخدا (kadkhodā) which translates to “the headman of the village,” is culturally bound and reflects the social dynamics within the story. In the translation, the term is first accompanied by a brief explanation, with subsequent occurrences of the word appearing as “Kadkhoda.”

Example 2:

Source Text (Persian):

لب رودخانه، کدخدا را دید و دو تا از ریش‌سفیدهای آبادی که داشتند با هم حرف می‌زدند و از کنار رودخانه می‌آمدند بالا (ص. 50).

[Lit.: By the river, he saw the headman and two of the elders from the village who were talking to each other and coming up alongside the river.]

Target Text (English): At the edge of the river, he saw the village headman, whom they all addressed as Kadkhoda. Kadkhoda was talking with two of the village elders as they walked up from the riverside (p. 57).

4.3.2 Time Factor 

The time factor influences translation decisions and should be considered an evaluative criterion, particularly for texts tied to specific historical periods (Reiss, 2000, p. 71). In the case of The Water Urn, the time factor is less critical since the narrative unfolds in contemporary Iran.

4.3.3 Place Factor

The place factor encompasses the cultural and geographical context of the source language, including the customs and institutions peculiar to that environment (Reiss, 2000, pp. 74–78). Addressing these elements is crucial for translators, as they help the target audience understand the narrative.

The translator of The Water Urn demonstrates an awareness of this issue. She has provided explanations for Persian words and phrases within their immediate context, avoiding footnotes that might disrupt the reading flow. This aligns with Reiss’s (2000) recommendation for handling place-related factors in form-focused texts.

4.3.4. Audience Factor

The audience is defined as “the reader or hearer of the text in the source language” (Reiss, 2000, p. 78). This audience may differ from the anticipated readership the translator has in mind. The criteria for this consideration involve understanding “what the author of the original had in mind for his readers when forming the original text” (Reiss, 2000, p. 78).

The Water Urn is addressed primarily to contemporary Iranian readers, particularly children and young adults. Moradi Kermani assumes that his audience is familiar with their own culture and society. As a result, he provides footnotes only for those elements deeply rooted in rural life that might be unfamiliar to readers, particularly in the context of a small Iranian village in the 20^th century. Some of the culturally specific terms explained are:

کماجدان: دیگ بزرگ مسی (ص. 18)،        [komājdān: a big copper pot]

مویز: انگور خشک شده (ص. 19)،              [maviz: dried grapes]

گل رختشوی: گلی سفید که کمی کف هم می‌کند و به جای صابون با آن رخت می‌شویند. (ص. 100)

[gel-e rakhtshooy: white clay that makes a little foam and instead of soap, clothes are washed with it.]

In translating these terms, the translator employed various strategies. In some words, she adopted a domestication approach, translating culturally specific items to align with the target culture. For instance, کماجدان (komājdān) is rendered simply as “pot” (p. 16), while the word (maviz) مویز is translated as “raisin” (p. 18). In these cases, the translator omitted the author’s footnotes, as additional explanation was deemed unnecessary.

In other instances, the translator integrated the explanations provided by the author into the main text. For example, گل رختشوی (gel-e rakhtshooy) is translated as “the white washing mud which they used for washing” (p. 123). This method prioritizes the ease of reading while maintaining the joy of the narrative for the target audience.

However, it is worth noting that there are many elements familiar to the Iranian readership that may appear strange or incomprehensible to the Western audience. Consider the following example (Example 3):

Example 3:

مادر قنبری داشت خمیرهای توی تغار را چنگ می‌زد (ص. 29).      Source Text (Persian):

[Lit.: Qanbari's mother was grabbing the dough in the trough.]

Target Text (English): Ghanbary’s mother was kneading bread dough in an earthy bowl (p. 31).

The term تغار (taqār) is culturally bound, and Moradi Kermani assumes Persian readers will understand it. The translator substitutes it with “an earthy bowl,” which conveys the essential meaning but loses the original cultural context and atmospheric richness.

Similarly:

Example 4:

Source Text (Persian):   روز جمعه، خاور چادرش را بست به کمرش (ص. 76)

[Lit.: On Friday, Khavar tied her chador to her waist.]

Target Text (English): On Friday, Khavar put on her chador and wrapped it around her waist (p. 90).

Here, چادر (chādor) is retained as “chador.” This term is borrowed into English and is included in the Longman Contemporary Dictionary (2014). However, a more comprehensive explanation would benefit English-speaking readers, as the translation lacks sufficient context for understanding.

In summary, in form-focused texts, the form and atmosphere of the source text possess an aesthetic value that needs to be reflected in the translation as fully as possible. In The Water Urn, the original form is sacrificed in many instances for the sake of meaning which can detract from the overall aesthetic experience of the translated work.

4.3.5. Speaker Factor

The speaker factor encompasses elements that influence the author’s language and creation as extra-linguistic factors. Present at the lexical, grammatical, and stylistic levels, these factors shape an author’s style, reflecting influences from their origins, education, era, and affiliation with specific schools or traditions. Thus, they play a crucial role in establishing the stylistic “persona” of an author, particularly in form-focused texts (Reiss, 2000, p. 82).

Moradi Kermani’s distinctive voice permeates all his works. His writings embody a commitment to honesty, serving as reflections of his rural upbringing and childhood perspective. The third-person narrative in his stories often mirrors real experiences from his youth, tackling significant issues such as children’s lives, poverty, and rural existence. Kermani is also recognized as a satirist whose critiques address the social and economic hardships faced by Iranians (Kaedi, 2000, p. 20).

The translator, a native English speaker with familiarity with Iranian culture, has endeavored to capture these intrinsic elements of Moradi Kermani’s The Water Urn in the English translation. Her efforts aim to reflect the author’s unique style and thematic concerns while making the text accessible to a wider audience.

4.3.6 Affective Implications

Reiss (2000, pp. 83–86) highlights the significance of emotional determinants in assessing translation quality. These determinants influence lexical, stylistic, and even grammatical aspects of source texts, and it is essential that the translated version accurately reflect these emotional nuances. Reiss emphasizes that it is often the context—preferably the situational context—that dictates the specific type of affective quality present in the text. Emotional elements typically relate to linguistic mechanisms for expressing humor, irony, scorn, sarcasm, excitement, and even profanity.

The Water Urn incorporates many of these emotional dimensions. The following subsections illustrate how the translator has recognized and addressed these elements to maintain their integrity in translation.

Humor: Humor pervades nearly all of Moradi Kermani’s works, and The Water Urn is no exception. In Table 9, examples demonstrate how the translator successfully conveys the humor present in the source text, ensuring that the same enjoyable experience is accessible to target language readers.

Scorn or sarcasm: Table 10 presents examples that exemplify the colloquial and sarcastic language utilized in The Water Urn. The sarcastic impact of the source text has been preserved and successfully transferred into the translated version. The translator has exercised caution in rendering idiomatic expressions (as seen in Number 3) by employing equivalent idiomatic phrases, ensuring that the humor and tone remain intact for the target audience.

Excitement: The examples presented in Table 11 illustrate how the words آهای (āhāy) and اوهوی (ohoy), which convey excitement in Persian, are effectively translated into English as “Hey,” maintaining the same sense of enthusiasm.

Table 9

Humor or Irony in The Water Urn

Table 10

Scorn or Sarcasm in The Water Urn

Table 11

Excitement in The Water Urn

Swear words: Table 12 demonstrates how the translator has employed suitable equivalents for the swear words found in the source text. She appears to have been quite successful in conveying the level of offense present in the source, ensuring that the emotional weight is preserved in the translated version.

Table 12

Swear Words in The Water Urn

5. Conclusion

In this study, an effort was made to assess the quality of the English translation of Moradi Kermani’s Khomreh (2014) based on Reiss’s (2000) model. The results indicated that the translation can be regarded as an almost entirely successful equivalent translation. Large sections read as though they were originally written in English. The content of the source text was effectively transmitted, reflecting the translator’s deep understanding of the atmosphere and culture inherent in the source material.

This understanding enabled the translator to adopt appropriate strategies for the various categories examined. As a result, Iranian culture, society, and the overall ambiance of the story were represented satisfactorily. The translator consciously endeavored to respect the forms of the source language while seeking equivalent structures in the target language. She demonstrated a keen awareness of the subtleties of linguistic elements and extra-linguistic determinants as well as the structural differences between Persian and English. Overall, the examples presented in the study attest to the translator’s meticulous attention to these elements, culminating in a translation that merits recognition as equivalent.

Conflict of interest

The author certifies that she has no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in the present research paper.